On 4/1/2016 4:23 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Eric,
I have read your proposed draft as well as watched this thread with a
bit of an interest.
To me the best compromise - which is to agree with Bruno's points as
well as address your intentions is simply to request new SAFI for
3107bis.
I don't think that makes any sense at all. The whole point is to ensure
that 3107bis interoperates with 3107 for those features that are already
deployed and are already multi-vendor interoperable.
From the draft you are really not updating 3107 base spec but
obsoleting it which to me looks like a bad idea.
That is the nature of a "bis" draft.
You are even requesting to remove IANA reference to original spec.
That is the nature of a "bis" draft.
How would IANA know when is it safe to do that .. meaning when all
implementations will not suddenly support and all deployments will
enable 3107bis ?
I don't understand the issue you are raising. I don't see any issue of
"safety".
New SAFI requires a new capability which you are asking for anyway.
I don't understand the point you are making here.
As far as implementations please keep in mind very important point
that some implementations treat SAFI 1 & 4 in single table and some in
separate tables.
Yes, and these implementation differences have consequences that are
discussed in the draft.
That when mixed with 3107bis may just explode if not in new set of
bugs then with operational nightmare.
I don't understand the issue you are raising here.
While we are at this it would be much cleaner to mandate in the new
spec to have 3107bis always to use separate tables as compared with
from SAFI 1.
Two goals of this draft are (a) to document the consequences of the
implementation differences, and (b) to avoid invalidating any particular
implementation. Obviously these goals would not be met if the spec
mandated a particular implementation method.
As we all know 3107(bis) tries to add NNI to MPLS. However it must be
very well stated that this is only one deployment option for
interdomain encapsulation. I would very much like to see a section
indicating that IPv6 or/and IPv4 be used as an alternative encap for
those applications which require it and when needed provide local
bindings between intradomain MPLS and interdomain IP.
This is entirely out of scope.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
